Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Bombay High Court Quashes Orders Rejecting Application and Imposing Tax Liability

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Bombay High Court has quashed and set aside orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, rejecting an application and imposing tax liability on the petitioners. The court held that the orders failed to meet the necessary requirements and violated established principles.

In the case of Writ Petition No. 1672 of 2021, the petitioners, Manjula D. Rita and Bhavya D. Rita, who are the legal heirs of Shri Dinesh Shamji Rita, challenged an order dated March 9, 2020, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. The order rejected the petitioners' application under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners also impugned an order dated May 7, 2018, passed under Section 179(1) of the Act.

In their oral judgment, Justices K. R. Shriram and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla stated, "Not only the order dated March 9, 2020, but also the order passed on May 7, 2018, under Section 179 of the Act require to be quashed and set aside." The court highlighted that the order dated May 7, 2018, lacked grounds for commencing proceedings under Section 179 and failed to satisfy the necessary requirements.

The court further noted that there was no evidence indicating that any notice was issued to the deceased, and the order under Section 179 did not attribute non-recovery to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty. Additionally, the company in question was undergoing the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The court emphasized that the Director can be held responsible only when non-recovery is attributable to their actions.

High court stated, "Without going into the merits of the assessment order passed or whether the time was ripe to issue notice under Section 179 of the Act, we hereby quash and set aside the order dated March 9, 2020, passed under Section 264 of the Act, so also the order dated May 7, 2018, passed under Section 179 of the Act."

This judgment serves as an important reminder of the legal principles governing the imposition of tax liabilities and the requirement of proper procedures. It highlights the significance of giving due notice and considering the circumstances surrounding non-recovery before imposing such liabilities.

Date of Decision: 19th June 2023

Manjula D. Rita vs 1. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 

Latest Legal News